How many have an opinion/ view that Cameron's only real concern in Libya was BP's oil contracts that was signed during the Tony Blair year's when daffy duck ruled the roost ..whilst claiming to state it was humanitarian grounds whilst we saw force used on civilians elsewhere around the world and no action was used and ironically the foreign secetary William Hague makes an issue of 13yr old kids death in Syria by the regime in Parliment amazingly none of the other MP's question why no force is used against the Syrian regime .

Did BP use there Influence and ask Cameron to use military force/ intervene in Libya soley to protect there Oil contracts

How many have an opinion/ view that Cameron's only real concern in Libya was BP's oil contracts that was signed during the Tony Blair year's when daffy duck ruled the roost ..whilst claiming to state it was humanitarian grounds whilst we saw force used on civilians elsewhere around the world and no action was used and ironically the foreign secetary William Hague makes an issue of 13yr old kids death in Syria by the regime in Parliment amazingly none of the other MP's question why no force is used against the Syrian regime .

Did BP use there Influence and ask Cameron to use military force/ intervene in Libya soley to protect there Oil contracts

Click to expand...

It is probably just you who thinks that.

Given that Tony Blair had already obtained contracts with with the old regime; the best thing for BP would have been to keep that regime in power. If we had blocked international intervention; then the old regime would have remained in power and the contracts would have been even safer. Whereas everything is now up in the air and there is no guarantee that BP will get anything like as good a deal with the new regime.

How many have an opinion/ view that Cameron's only real concern in Libya was BP's oil contracts that was signed during the Tony Blair year's when daffy duck ruled the roost ..whilst claiming to state it was humanitarian grounds whilst we saw force used on civilians elsewhere around the world and no action was used and ironically the foreign secetary William Hague makes an issue of 13yr old kids death in Syria by the regime in Parliment amazingly none of the other MP's question why no force is used against the Syrian regime .

Did BP use there Influence and ask Cameron to use military force/ intervene in Libya soley to protect there Oil contracts

Click to expand...

As BHL said, if it was just about oil we'd have backed Qaddafi, after all the Big Oil was instrumental in expensively rehabilitating the evil old bugger after, the shameful al-Megrahi has their fingerprints all over it. The Italian ENI who have by far the biggest stake in the Libyan fields looked distinctly reluctant to risk intervention. Qaddafi was dipping his beak in the oil majors profits but so will any new regime, especially if it is representative.

There wasn't much of a real politik case for saving Benghazi from getting the usual kicking, Gates' Pentagon appeared disgusted by the whole thing. Libya's a backwater, with the Arab Spring opportunity costs have to be considered, knocking off such a feeble despots doesn't even work in a "throwing little guy up against the wall" sense. The Russians and Chinese just smirk about DC being distracted in small Middle Eastern countries. I put it down to panic and Sarko's vast needy ego more than anything. So far it's has gone reasonably well, the Libyan's generally seem delighted, we'll see if it turns a profit.

There are reasons for inaction elsewhere. In Cairo all we can do is bribe Tantawi's Junta and actually we'd rather like it to be the re-tread of the Mubarak regime it appears to be. The Israelis (and so DC) appear none to eager for change in Syria, the regime has allies in Iran, Lebanon and Iraq and provides basing to the Russians. It is not yet weak enough to present a tempting cakewalk. In Bahrain and Yemen we don't want to tread on our brutal chums the Saudis toes, now that is all about oil.

I think that the outraged left can rest easy: the past fifty or so years has proved that UK governments always spectacularly fail to gain any commercial benefit on the back of military expenditure. Be assured that Libyan oil is most likely to be exploited by Russia, China or France...

I think that the outraged left can rest easy: the past fifty or so years has proved that UK governments always spectacularly fail to gain any commercial benefit on the back of military expenditure. Be assured that Libyan oil is most likely to be exploited by Russia, China or France...

Click to expand...

But Russia is a major exporter of oil. The Russians also sat on the fence during the last 6 months and are unlikely to have much traction with the NTC.